IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management in Poland

  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

    ()

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Anna Bartczak

    ()

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    ()

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Stale Navrud

    ()

    (Norwegian University of Life Sciences)

  • Tomasz Żylicz

    ()

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

The paper looks at people’s preferences for the changes in selected ecosystem services resulting from new management strategies of forest areas in Poland. It applies a generalized multinomial logit (G-MNL) model to interpret the results of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) study administered to a representative sample of 1001 Poles. The questionnaire included three physical attributes, namely: protecting the most ecologically valuable forest ecosystems, reducing litter in forests, and improving recreation infrastructure. The selection of these attributes was motivated by extensive qualitative research of what indicators of biodiversity, nature protection and recreation possibilities people are the most sensitive to. The fourth attribute was monetary – additional cost of the new programs which would have to be financed out of increased taxes. The results allowed for a robust estimation of implicit prices of the choice attributes and calculating welfare measures of specific forest management scenarios. In addition, the study revealed interesting connections between respondents’ current forest recreation patterns and the importance they place on different attributes of forests. The results make it possible to utilize respondents’ preference heterogeneity, to a large extent determined by their current recreational use patterns, in designing future forest management strategies.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/inf/wyd/WP/WNE_WP90.pdf
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw in its series Working Papers with number 2013-05.

as
in new window

Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2013-05
Contact details of provider: Postal: ul. Dluga 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa
Phone: (+48 22) 55 49 144
Fax: (+48 22) 831 28 46
Web page: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  2. John M. Rose & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Designs Efficiency for Non-market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure It, What to Report and Why," Working Papers in Economics 07/21, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  3. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34.
  4. Małgorzata Buszko-Briggs & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "Valuing Changes in Forest Biodiversity," Working Papers 2008-02, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  5. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
  6. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
  7. Andrew Mill, Greig & van Rensburg, Tom M. & Hynes, Stephen & Dooley, Conor, 2007. "Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: Citizen and consumer perpectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 642-653, January.
  8. Brock,W.A. & Durlauf,S.N., 2004. "Identification of binary choice models with social interactions," Working papers 2, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  9. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  10. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  11. Anna Bartczak & Jeffrey Englin & Arwin Pang, 2012. "When are Forest Visits Valued the Most? An Analysis of the Seasonal Demand for Forest Recreation in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 249-264, June.
  12. Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2009. "Decomposing the structural identification of non-market values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 123-139, March.
  13. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  14. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235 Edward Elgar.
  15. Bartczak, Anna & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle & Zandersen, Marianne & Zylicz, Tomasz, 2008. "Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 467-472, October.
  16. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  17. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  18. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
  19. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2013-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marcin Bąba)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.